Re: sinval contention reduction

On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 14:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 19:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> This seems large, complex, and untested (I note in particular a
> >> guaranteed-to-fail Assert).
>
> > Yes, its for discussion. How would you describe such a patch in the
> > future? I want to be able to differentiate patch status.
>
> "Completely untested" might be an appropriate description ...

That wouldn't be true, because it passes make check. If it were true,
I'd have said it.

Your responses are inappropriate to a patch clearly marked "for
discussion", especially when you privately suggested this topic for me
to look at and you also know exactly which system I was going to run a
performance test on once I had the patch agreed.

--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com